Case So Bad, Jury Excused From Service...
News1 min ago
True Socialism Always Ends With The Stasi
64 Answers
An article well worth the read.
It would be interesting to get some direct responses to the points raised by Daniel Finkelstein from our resident Socialists.
PLEASE: No name calling, no slanging or 'ists'.
https:/
It would be interesting to get some direct responses to the points raised by Daniel Finkelstein from our resident Socialists.
PLEASE: No name calling, no slanging or 'ists'.
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This should give you an idea of the crux of the article:
"Ever since 1956, when news of Nikita Khrushchev’s so-called secret speech began to leak out to the West, socialists have been trying to find an alternative form of socialism. One that works.
For more than 60 years since then, this has been the project of socialist intellectuals and politicians from Ralph Miliband to Tony Benn. The new left has, with progressives and liberals, been involved in important campaigns to end colonialism, to promote gay rights and women’s equality, and to reduce and eventually eliminate racial discrimination. But how successful has it been in identifying and propounding an alternative to capitalism?
Completely unsuccessful. After six decades of thought and political action there remains not a single successful example of a socialist society anywhere in history and anywhere in the world. Most recently they all got very excited about Venezuela. We were told by Jeremy Corbyn that we could honour Hugo Chávez by treating him as an example to us all.
This does not, of course, mean that there haven’t been successful centre-left governments or that there are no alternatives to whatever policy the Tory party puts in its manifesto. I am not equating Yvette Cooper with Mao Zedong. I am simply saying that for all the slogans about the evils of capitalism, nobody has come up with a workable, sensible alternative. Not ways of changing it, you understand. An actual alternative.
Remember the kid with all the badges in class who tried to explain to you what socialism was, and you couldn’t quite understand how it worked? Well we are still basically there, and the failure in comprehension wasn’t yours."
"Ever since 1956, when news of Nikita Khrushchev’s so-called secret speech began to leak out to the West, socialists have been trying to find an alternative form of socialism. One that works.
For more than 60 years since then, this has been the project of socialist intellectuals and politicians from Ralph Miliband to Tony Benn. The new left has, with progressives and liberals, been involved in important campaigns to end colonialism, to promote gay rights and women’s equality, and to reduce and eventually eliminate racial discrimination. But how successful has it been in identifying and propounding an alternative to capitalism?
Completely unsuccessful. After six decades of thought and political action there remains not a single successful example of a socialist society anywhere in history and anywhere in the world. Most recently they all got very excited about Venezuela. We were told by Jeremy Corbyn that we could honour Hugo Chávez by treating him as an example to us all.
This does not, of course, mean that there haven’t been successful centre-left governments or that there are no alternatives to whatever policy the Tory party puts in its manifesto. I am not equating Yvette Cooper with Mao Zedong. I am simply saying that for all the slogans about the evils of capitalism, nobody has come up with a workable, sensible alternative. Not ways of changing it, you understand. An actual alternative.
Remember the kid with all the badges in class who tried to explain to you what socialism was, and you couldn’t quite understand how it worked? Well we are still basically there, and the failure in comprehension wasn’t yours."
There is a problem surrounding the words socialist, and socialism, rather like Muslim and Islam - they mean different things to different people. Communists refer to themselves as socialists, which is correct to some extent but others who also think of themselves as socialists strongly disagree with them. Similarly, those who advocate holy war against non-Muslims (even other Muslim sects), especially in certain countries, in the here and now do so in the name of Islam but the vast majority of those who see themselves as Muslims are against the idea. In both cases (socialism and Islam) there are those who, seeing themselves as neither socialist or Muslim, have in principle taken an adversarial stance against anything that can in the remotest sense be perceived as socialism (health insurance (Obamacare) ?) or representative of Islam (fasting ?) and will foam at the mouth and decry it and anyone suggesting either (socialism or Islam) can be lived with is ostracised.
It appears that socialists have many different ideas of what "socialism" actually means... You can hardly expect to explain something that isn't defined.
The most succinct explanation of the basic flaw is of course from the Iron Lady; "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.'
The most succinct explanation of the basic flaw is of course from the Iron Lady; "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.'
Socialism was summed up best by Orwell's famous " All men are equal, but some are more equal than others", but you can go even further than that; boning up on the French revolution in a good book called, 'The Coming of the Terror in the French revolution' by Timothy Tackett (Belknap press) it is clear that the ones who thought they were just a little 'more equal' soon started to destroy one another and the whole thing descended into a terrible bloodbath where nobody was safe from execution.
They had the Guillotine, the USSR had the Gulags and I don't know how many poor souls are incarcerated in Nth Korea.
They had the Guillotine, the USSR had the Gulags and I don't know how many poor souls are incarcerated in Nth Korea.
Aren't you mixing up social liberalism with economic liberalism, though? I'm not sure that the two should be so easily mixed. I have myself no real clue about what is sound economic policy, or not -- apart from the observation that nothing seems to work very well in the long run -- and it seems to me that this is what the article's discussing.
Liberalism is just PC. Socialism is the only philosophy that puts the citizens first, it is necessary to ensure greed driven individuals don't just use the rest if us for their own ends. It creates and maintains a decent commercial framework within which a country can benefit from the incentives that controlled capitalism offers. Something, that unlike communism does, isn't rejected as good practice. The right balance is vital in order to achieve the best for all.
Stasi is the sort of thing ALL governments aspire to. Politicians desire control, which is why the public must be vigilant and oppose any form of excess monitoring and control. Things like allowing personal data to be shared across different functional databases, or the need to carry and show papers/ID cards on demand, or restricting freedoms using any available excuse. No party opposes these things as policy, one relies on external groups noticing and campaigning.
Stasi is the sort of thing ALL governments aspire to. Politicians desire control, which is why the public must be vigilant and oppose any form of excess monitoring and control. Things like allowing personal data to be shared across different functional databases, or the need to carry and show papers/ID cards on demand, or restricting freedoms using any available excuse. No party opposes these things as policy, one relies on external groups noticing and campaigning.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.